Corpus Juris Civilis. Institutiones

But, when the deceased leaves no descendants, if a father, or mother, or any other parents, grand-fathers, great-grand-fathers, &c. survive him, we decree, that they shall be preferred to all collateral relations, except brothers of the whole blood to the deceased, as shall hereafter be more particularly declared. But, if many ascendants are living, we prefer those, who are in the nearest degree, whether they are male or female, paternal or maternal; and, when several ascendants concur in the same degree, the inheritance of the deceased must be so divided, that the ascendants on the part of the father may receive one-half, and the ascendants on the part of the mother the other half, without regard to the number of persons on either side. But, if the deceased leaves brothers and sisters of the whole blood together with ascendants, these collaterals of the deceased shall be called with the nearest ascendants, although such ascendants are a father or mother; and the inheritance must be so divided according to the number of persons, that each of the ascendants, and each of the brothers, may have an equal portion; nor shall the father in this case take to himself any usufruct of the portions belonging to his sons and daughters, because by this law we have given him the absolute property of one portion: and we suffer no distinction to be made between those persons, who are called to an inheritance, whether they are males or females, or related by males or females, or whether he, to whom they succeed, was, or was not, under power, at the time of his

decease.

Eł za zaïre one oray. Si et pater aut mater fuerint By the law of Erg and, when a person dies intestate, leaving a father, the father is solely entitled to the whole personal estate of the intestate, exclusive of all others; and anciently, [i e in the reign of Honry the first, vid, ll. Hen. primi, Wilkins editore, p. 266.1 a surviving father, or mother, could have taken even the real estate of their deceased child. But this law of succession was altered soon afterwards; for we find by Glanville, that, in the time of Henry the second, a fa, her or mother could not have taken the real estates of their deceased children, the inheritance being then carried over to the collateral line. Vid Glanville, lib. 7, cap. 1, 2, &c. 1 Peere William's 50. And it has ever since been held as an inviolable maxim, that an inheritance cannot ascend. Co. Litt. 11. a. But this alteration in the law, made since the reign of Henry the first, did not extend to personal estate, so that, before the statute of the first of james the second, if a child had died into state without a wife, child, or father, the mother would have been entitled to the whole personal estate, exclusive of the brothers and sisters of the intestate; but it is enacted by that statute, “that, if, after the “death of a father, any of his children shall “die intestate, without wife or children, in

But, should it here be asked, whether the brother of an intestate would exclude the grand-father by the civil law? the novel appears at first sight to answer it very fully in the negative by enacting, “that, if the deceas. “ed leaves brothers and sisters together with “ascendants in the right line, these collateral, “shall be called with the nearest ascendants,” &c. And indeed the generality of writers,

namely, Gudelin, Forster, Ferriere, Donut,

and others, all understand this passage, as admitting ascendants and brothers to take jointly; yet a contrary interpretation hath been given by some civilians, of whom Voet is the principal, whose arguments in sup. port of it are therefore here copied at large.

** aperte probant verba Novellae 118. dum il** lic diserte cautum, si cum ascendentibus ** inveniuntur fratres aut sorores ex utrisque ** parentibus conjuncti defuncto, eos cum ** proximis gradu ascendentibus vocari, si aut ** pater aut mater fuerint: unde sequitur, eos ** non omni casu, nec promiscue cum omni** bus ascendentibus, venire; sed si pater aut ** mater fuerint: ideoque mox igitur subjici** tur, in hoc casu patrem nullum usum, ex: ** filiorum aut filiarum portione, posse sibi peni** tus vindicare, nulla ati facta mentione; cum ** tamen id avo aequa interdicendum fuisset, ** si et avus cum defuncti nepotis fratribus ** succedere potuisset, dum fratres succe** dentes aeque potuissent in avi quam in pa** tris potestate esse. Ut proinde nihil in con** trarium efficiat, quod, in jure, proximus ** dicatur, quem nemo aiitecedit; cuim id tum ** demum admitti debeat, quando nulla inde ** absurditas profluit; prout in hoc casu futu•* rum, supra monstratum est.* Vid. 5/oannis Voet. com., ad Pandectas, tom. 2. lib. 38. t. 17 § 13. But this question seems now to be settled in England in consequence of three dcterminationis; the first of which was given in the Exchequer in the case of Poole v. IVilshave on the 9th of iuly, 1708:—the second in the case of Norbury v. Vicars, before Mr. Fortescue, master of the rolls in November 1749:— and the third was delivered om the 14th January, 1754, in the case of Evelin v. Evelin, by the lord chancellor, who decreed in favour of the brother in exclusiom of the grand-father, having founded his opinion partly in deference to the former determinations; partly in consideration of the present common law computation of degrees, relative to real estates; and partly upon the benefit, which must accrue to the public by preferring a younger man to an older, the- brother of a deceased person to the grand-father, propter spem accrescendi. And it was also declared to be the opinion of the court, that, if the point in question had been res integra, and solely determinable by the Roman law, the decree would still have been the same ; which declaration, from so high an authority, must have great weight in ascertaining of the Novel, and must incline civilians in general to think more favourably for the future of Voet's arguments, which were particularly quoted and much relied upon by the court.

If a man leaves neither descendants nor ascendants at the time of his death, we first call his brothers and sisters of the whole blood, whom we have also called to inherit with the fathers of deceased persons.

But, when there are no brothers of the whole blood with the deceased, we call those, who are either by the same father only, or by the same mother. And, if the deceased leaves brothers and also nephews by a deceased brother or sister, these nephews shall be called to succeed with their uncles and aunts of the whole

blood to the deceased; but, however numerous these nephews are, they shall be entitled only to that share, which their parent would have taken, if alive. From whence it follows, that, if a man dies and is survived by the children of a deceas. ed brother of the whole blood, and also by brothers of the half blood, then his nephews, [that is, the children of his brother, by the whole blood,) are to be pre. ferred to their uncles and aunts: for, although such nephews are themselves in the third degree, yet they are preferred, as their parent would have been, if living And, on the contrary, if a man dies, and is survived by a brother of the whole blood, and by children of a brother of the half blood deceased, these nephews are excluded, as their father would have been, if he had lived. But among col. laterals we allow the privilege of representation to the sons and daughters of brothers and sisters, and no farther; and we grant it only to brothers and sisters' children, when they concur with their uncles or aunts, paternal or maternal: for, when ascendants are called to inherit, we by no means permit the children of a deceased brother or sister to share in the succession; although the father or mo. ther was of the whole blood with the deceased brother But we have so far allowed the right of representation to brothers and sisters' children, that, being only in the third degree, they are called to inherit with those, who are in the second; and this is evident, because brothers and sisters' children are preferred to the uncles and aunts of the deceased, paternal as well as maternal; although they are all in the third degree of cognation.

But, if a deceased person leaves neither brothers nor brothers' children, we then call all the other collaterals according to the , , sative of their respective degrees, preferring the neorer to the more remote; and, if many are found in th same degree, the inheritance must be divided according to the number of persons; and our laws distinguish this manner of dividing an inheritance by calling it a division in cafita.

TIgo; ~go try xxrovokay. Primos ad haereditatem vocamus...] We must here observe in relation to the distinction between the whole blood and the half blood, that in EngIant the rules of law are different, according to ti - nature of the estate, which is to be take n, for, in case of lands the whole blood is always preferred, and the half blood is no blood inheritable {y descent. 1 Co inst. 14 a. But, in respect to personal estate, the law has not always been fixed and certain; inasmuch as the statute of the 23d of Car. II. [for the better settlement gf the estates of intesrates] takes no notice of this distinction between the whole blood and the half blood, but directs, that distribution shall be made among all those, who are in equal degree of kindred to the intestate But, it being certain, that brothers and sisters of the half blood are in the same degree with brothers and sisters of the whole blood, it hath been the general opinion, that brothers and sisters of the half blood were entitled, by virtue of

the statute, to an equal share of the intes. tate's estate, with the brothers and sisters of the whole blood, although there are several precedents of judgments given, since the statute, allowing the half blood to have but an half soare. But the law in this respect has been fully settled ever since the decree of the house of lords in the case of Watts and others versus Croake, upon an appeal from a decree in chancery, which had been given in favour of the half blood, and was affirmed by the house. Vid. Shovers’s Cases in Par. 108 and Strahan's Domat. 683. 2 Mod 204. Harris, Ovov, reorg. Nullo modo I “Sancimus, ot, “si quis moriens relinquat ascendentium ali“quiem et fratres, qui possint cum parenti“bus vocari, et alterius praemortui fratris fi. “lios, cum ascendentibus et fratribus vocen: “tur etiam præmortui fratris filii, et tantam “accipiant portionem, quantum eorum futu“rus erat pater accipiere, si vixisset.” Wid. Nov. cxxvii. cap. 1. Harris.